AN  INTRODUCTORY  LECTURE 
DELIVERED  BEFORE  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY, 
January  4,  1893. 


BY 


W.  J.  ASHLEY,  M.A. 

PROFESSOR  OF  ECONOMIC  HISTORY  IN  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY, 
LATE  PROFESSOR  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO, 
SOMETIME  FELLOW  OF  LINCOLN  COLLEGE,  OXFORD. 


Reprinted  from  the  (Harvard)  “ Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics] 
Vol.  vii.,  No.  2  ;  January ,  i8gj 


ON  THE  STUDY  OF  ECONOMIC  HISTORY 


AN  INTRODUCTORY  LECTURE 
DELIVERED  BEFORE  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY, 
January  4,  1893. 


BY 


W.  J.  ASHLEY,  M.A. 

PROFESSOR  OF  ECONOMIC  HISTORY  IN  HARVARD  UNIVERSITY, 
LATE  PROFESSOR  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO, 
SOMETIME  FELLOW  OF  LINCOLN  COLLEGE,  OXFORD. 


Reprinted  from  the  ( Harvard )  “ Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,' 
Vol.  vii.,  No.  2  ;  January ,  1893. 


yyp 


OEO.  H. 


ELLIS,  PRINTER, 


1  FRANKLIN  ST.,  BOSTON, 


ON  THE  STUDY  OF  ECONOMIC  HISTORY.* 


The  teacher  in  England  or  America  who  seeks  to  ex- 
jlain  his  attitude  towards  economic  science  does  so  at 
he  present  time  under  peculiarly  favorable  conditions. 
There  reigns  just  now  a  spirit  of  tolerance  and  mutual 
charity  among  political  economists  such  as  has  not  always 
been  found  within  their  circle.  It  is  not  that  we  have 
returned  to  the  confident  dogmatism  and  unanimity  ot 
the  last  generation, —  of  the  period  which  extended  from 
the  publication  of  John  Stuart  Mill’s  treatise  to  the 
sounding  of  the  first  note  of  revolt  in  Cliffe  Leslie  s 
essays.  It  is  rather  that,  though  there  are  still  marked 
divergencies,  the  followers  of  one  method  no  longer 
maintain  that  it  is  the  only  method  of  scientific  inves¬ 
tigation  ;  that,  on  the  other  hand,  the  believers  m  induc¬ 
tion  now  recognize  more  fully  the  value  of  deduction ;  that 
the  most  abstract  sometimes  refer  to  facts  and  the  most 
concrete  occasionally  make  use  of  abstraction  ;  and,  what 
is  far  more  important,  that  they  are  inclined,  whatever 
their  own  turn  of  thought  may  be,  to  let  others  alone  who 
walk  not  with  them,  or  even  to  cheer  them  on  their  way  m  y 
the  benevolent  hope  that  they  may  arrive  at  something 
worth  the  getting.  It  has  now  become  almost  a  common¬ 
place  even  with  economists  of  the  older  school  that  stu¬ 
dents  may  usefully  be  led  to  work  in  different  ways,  owing 
to  “varieties  of  mind,  of  temper,  of  training,  and  of  oppor- 
tunities.”t  In  England  an  association  has  at  last  been 

*  An  introductory  lecture  delivered  before  Harvard  University,  January  4, 
1893. 

t  Marshall,  Principles ,  p.  92  (2d  ed.). 


' 


o  ?  . 


113 


4 


founded  which  includes  among  its  members  most  of  those 
writers  and  teachers  who  are  seriously  interested  in  eco¬ 
nomics,  and  a  journal  has  been  established  which  welcomes 
contributions  from  every  side  with  admirable  impartiality. 
In  America  an  association,  which  has  for  some  years 
been  doing  excellent  work,  but  which  has  hitherto  been 
a  little  one-sided  in  its  membership,  has  just  widened  its 
borders,  and  brought  in  even  those  against  whose  teach¬ 
ings  it  was  once  its  business  to  protest.  The  controversies 
which  break  the  monotony  of  life  for  our  German  col¬ 
leagues  have  now  but  a  faint  echo  among  English-speak¬ 
ing  economists ;  the  personal  antagonisms  which  separate 
French  schools  are  altogether  absent ;  and  to  most  of  us 
the  recent  exchange  of  hostilities  between  two  distin¬ 
guished  English  economists  has  seemed  almost  an  anach¬ 
ronism.  It  is,  therefore,  with  something  of  trepidation 
that  I  venture  upon  what  may  possibly  look  like  a  renewal 
of  old  controversies.  Yet  it  is  encouraging  to  think  that, 
even  if  one  had  something  very  “  extreme  ”  to  say,  one 
might  now  count  upon  being  heard  with  patience  and 
urbanity. 

It  would  be  idle  to  deny  that  the  hopes  which  were  en¬ 
tertained  by  the  younger  men  of  the  “  historical  ”  or  “  in¬ 
ductive  ”  school  in  Germany  some  twenty  years  ago,  and 
by  Cliffe  Leslie  and  more  recently  by  Dr.  Ingram  among 
English  writers,  have  not  hitherto  been  realized.  They 
looked  for  a  complete  and  rapid  transformation  of  eco¬ 
nomic  science ;  and  it  needs  only  a  glance  at  the  most 
widely  used  text-books  of  to-day  to  see  that  no  such  com¬ 
plete  transformation  has  taken  place.  Of  this  disappoint¬ 
ment  a  partial  explanation  may  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
the  historical  economists  were  still  so  far  under  the  spell  of 
the  old  discipline  as  to  continue  to  conceive  of  economics 
under  the  forms  made  familiar  by  the  manuals.  They 
still  had  before  their  eyes  the  customary  rubrics  of  Pro¬ 
duction,  Distribution,  and  Exchange;  they  still  handled 


5 


the  sacred  terms  Value,  Supply,  Demand,  Capital,  Rent, 
and  the  rest, —  terms  which,  to  use  Oliver  Wendell 
Holmes’s  phrase,  were  just  as  much  in  need  of  depolariza¬ 
tion  as  the  terms  of  theology ;  they  still  looked  forward  to 
framing  “  laws  ”  similar  in  character,  however  different  in 
content,  to  the  “  laws  ”  in  possession  of  the  field.  Aiming, 
as  they  unconsciously  did,  at  the  construction  of  a  body 
of  general  propositions  dealing  with  just  the  same  rela¬ 
tions  between  individuals  as  the  older  school  had  given 
its  attention  to,  it  was  natural  that  they  should  fall  back 
on  the  use  of  that  deductive  method  which  is  certainly  of 
service  for  the  analysis  of  modern  competitive  conditions, 
although  they  had  begun  by  unnecessarily  rejecting  it. 
And  thus  the  “  methodological  ”  arguments  of  the  ortho¬ 
dox  may  seem  to  have  gained  an  easy  victory. 

I  shall  attempt  to  show  later  that  this  is  not  an  ade¬ 
quate  version  of  the  matter ;  that  during  this  period  the 
historical  movement  has  been  slowly  pushing  its  way 
towards  its  own  true  field  of  work.  Even  in  its  relation 
to  current  economic  teaching,  it  has  performed  a  work  of 
vital  importance.  It  has  been  no  mere  aberration,  passing 
away  and  leaving  no  trace ;  nor  is  it  quite  a  complete  ac¬ 
count  of  it  to  say  that  it  has  contributed  useful  elements 
which  have  been  incorporated  in  the  body  of  economic 
science.  It  has  done  more  than  this :  it  has  changed  the 
whole  mental  attitude  of  economists  towards  their  own 
teaching.  The  acceptance  of  the  two  great  principles, — 
which  are  but  different  forms  of  the  same  idea, —  thaty 
economic  conclusions  are  relative  to  given  conditions,  and 
that  they  possess  only  hypothetical  validity,  is  at  last  a 
part  of  the  mental  habit  of  economists.  The  same  is 
true  of  the  conviction  that  economic  considerations  are 
not  the  only  ones  of  which  we  must  take  account  in  judg- 1 
ing  of  social  phenomena,  and  that  economic  forces  are 
not  the  only  forces  which  move  men.  It  need  hardly  be 
said  that  all  this  was  recognized  in  word  long  ago ;  but 


6 


it  may  be  left  to  the  verdict  of  those  who  are  conversant 
with  the  literature  of  the  last  generation  whether  these 
convictions  were  really  underlying  and  fruitful  parts  of 
daily  thought,  as  they  are  now  tending  to  be.  The 
remark,  indeed,  is  not  out  of  place  in  passing  that,  al¬ 
though  this  salutary  conversion  may  be  discerned  among 
professional  economists,  it  has  hardly  taken  place  so  com¬ 
pletely  as  one  could  wish  with  the  educated  public,  and 
that  historical  zealots  may  still  do  good  service  in  insist¬ 
ing  on  these  well-worn  platitudes. 

The  altered  mental  attitude  of  the  theoretic  economists 
themselves  towards  their  own  doctrine  is  so  much  the  most 
important  result,  from  the  point  of  view  of  current  teach- 
y  ing,  of  the  historical  movement  that  it  dwarfs  its  other 
effects  in  the  same  direction.  But  these  other  effects  are 
well  worth  looking  at ;  and  they  are  evident  enough,  if  we 
turn  over  the  two  most  important  of  modern  treatises,  the 
Principles  of  Professor  Marshall  and  the  Lelirbuch  of 
Professor  Wagner.  Professor  Marshall  so  clearly  realizes 
that  the  understanding  of  modern  conditions  is  assisted 
by  a  consideration  of  their  genesis  that  he  introduces  his 
work  by  two  chapters  on  “  The  Growth  of  Free  Industry 
and  Enterprise,”  and  by  another  chapter  on  “  The  Growth 
of  Economic  Science.”  So,  again,  his  discussion  of  Popu¬ 
lation  is  preceded  by  a  history  of  the  doctrine,  and  a  his¬ 
tory  of  population  itself  in  England.  His  treatment  of 
Industrial  Organization  consists  largely  of  historical  re¬ 
flections.  The  theory  of  Distribution  is  introduced  by  a 
sketch  of  its  history,  and  the  doctrine  of  Bent  is  con¬ 
sidered  in  relation  to  early  forms  of  land  tenure.  With 
Professor  Wagner  the  influence  of  historical  thought  is 
even  more  marked.  As  every  one  is  aware  who  has  had 
occasion  to  consult  the  recent  volumes  of  his  Finanz- 
wissenschaft ,  his  accumulation  of  historical  material  has 
grown  so  fast  that  it  is  threatening  to  become  unwieldy. 
A  more  convincing  evidence  of  his  familiarity  with  his- 


7 


torical  modes  of  thought  is  presented  in  many  parts  of  his 
treatment  of  general  theory ;  e.g .,  in  his  acceptance  of  the 
position  that  “capital,”  as  it  is  now  understood,  is  an 
“historical,”  and  not  an  eternally  necessary  “category.” 
He  even  attempts  to  formulate  an  historical  law, —  a  law 
of  the  course  of  economic  evolution, —  and  that  in  a  matter 
which  touches  modern  problems  very  closely ;  to  wit,  his 
“law  of  the  increasing  extension  of  public  and  state 
activity.”  That  Wagner  should  to-day  be  regarded,  and 
should  regard  himself,  as  a  champion  of  abstraction  and 
deduction  as  against  the  “extrem e  Historismus” — though 
just  enough  in  the  main, —  has  in  it  something  of  the 
irony  of  circumstances.  It  reminds  one  of  the  observa¬ 
tion  of  John  Stuart  Mill  that  the  great  advantage  from 
the  presence  of  extremists  is  that  any  course  short  of  the 
extreme  gains  the  charm  of  “  moderation.” 

It  need  hardly  be  said  with  regard  to  the  examples  just 
given  that,  suggestive  as  such  historical  reflections  and 
generalizations  may  be,  they  are  not  to  be  regarded  as 
necessarily  either  accurate  or  desirable  methods  of  using 
historical  material.  They  illustrate,  however, —  and  that 
is  all  I  wish  to  show, —  the  influence,  to  a  large  extent 
the  unrealized  influence,  of  the  Zeitgeist  even  over  writers 
who  wish  to  carry  on  the  old  traditions. 

In  the  wider  issue  of  the  comparative  merits  of  induc¬ 
tion  and  deduction,  it  may  be  observed  that  conservative 
economists  themselves  no  longer  employ  the  sweeping 
language  in  favor  of  deduction  which  characterized  their 
predecessors.  They  have  discovered,  like  M.  Jourdain 
with  his  prose,  that  in  one  very  important  field,  that  of 
Production,  they  have  been  inductive  all  along  without 
knowing  it.*  It  is  further  allowed  by  recognized  authori¬ 
ties  that  “  within  the  province  of  descriptive  and  classifica- 
tory  economics  there  is  unlimited  scope  for  valuable 
economic  work.”  f  And,  accordingly,  we  see  a  series  of 

*  Sidgwick,  Principles ,  Introduction,  chap.  ii.  §1. 

t  Keynes,  Scope  and  Method  of  Political  Economy ,  p.  166, 


8 


useful  studies  in  modern  industrial  life, —  studies  largely 
historical, —  appearing  under  the  highest  economic  patron¬ 
age.  *  Even  the  pages  of  the  Harvard  Quarterly  Journal 
of  Economics. * —  the  peculiar  home  of  theory, —  furnish 
articles  on  the  history  of  the  tariff  or  of  the  currency; 
though  it  must  be  allowed  that  even  the  severest  theorists 
have  sometimes  coquetted  with  facts  when  they  ap¬ 
proached  these  particular  topics.  It  is  true  that  we  are 
cautioned  that  “  the  knowledge  of  particular  facts,  which 
is  thus  afforded,  does  not  in  itself  constitute  the  end  and 
aim  of  economic  science.”  f  But  we  will  not  be  distressed 
by  this  if  only  the  work  of  inquiry  will  go  on.  It  marks 
the  awakening, —  or  the  reawakening, —  in  American  and 
English  economics  of  a  sacred  passion  for  the  observation 
of  real  life,  of  which  it  has  too  long  been  devoid. 


I  have,  however,  already  remarked  that,  while  thus  af¬ 
fecting  the  character  of  the  teaching  of  economic  theory, 
the  historical  movement  has  pursued  its  way,  and  is  now 
settling  down  into  a  channel  of  its  own.  This  is  none 
other  than  the  actual  investigation  of  economic  history 
itself.  This  may,  perhaps,  be  a  somewhat  surprising  re¬ 
mark.  It  may  be  asked,  “  What,  then,  have  the  economists 
of  that  school  been  doing  hitherto  ?  ”  It  will,  however,  I 
think  be  found  that  the  creators  of  the  school  were  rather 
men  who  had  been  touched  by  the  historical  thought  around 
them,  and  inspired  by  its  ideas,  than  original  investigators. 
This  was  not  to  their  discredit :  it  was  the  result  of  the 
situation.  But  to-day  the  leaders  of  the  school  are  throw¬ 
ing  themselves  into  detailed  research,  and  are  feeling 
their  way  towards  independent  historical  construction. 
We  have  only  to  look  at  the  publications  of  Professor 

*E.g.,  Price’s  Industrial  Peace ,  with  preface  by  Professor  Marshall;  and 
the  other  publications  of  the  Toynbee  Trust. 


f  Keynes,  p.  167. 


9 


Schmoller,  of  Berlin,  and  of  the  body  of  fellow-workers  he 
has  gathered  around  him,  or  at  the  large  programme  of 
inquiry  into  agrarian  history  which  Professor  Knapp,  of 
Strasburg,  and  his  circle  have  put  before  themselves,*  to 
discover  how  strong  is  the  current  in  this  direction.  And 
with  this  serious  engagement  in  historical  inquiry  has 
come  a  clearer  perception  of  the  nature  of  the  generaliza¬ 
tions  towards  which  that  inquiry  must  work.  It  is  seen 
that  these  will  not  be  mere  corrections  or  amplifications »/ 
of  current  economic  doctrines :  they  will  rather  be  con¬ 
clusions  as  to  the  character  and  sequence  of  the  stages  in 
economic  development.  The  point  of  view  is  here  no 
longer  that  of  a  bargain  between  individuals  in  given 
social  conditions,  but  of  the  life  and  movement  of  whole 
industries  and  classes,  of  the  creation  and  modification 
of  social  mechanism,  of  the  parallel  progress  and  inter¬ 
action  of  economic  phenomena  and  economic  thought. 
The  studies  of  the  school  are  no  longer  individualist  and 
psychological,  but  collectivist  and  institutional.  To  help 
out  my  meaning  by  two  hackneyed  but  convenient 
phrases,  the  “  laws  ”  of  which  they  think  are  “  dynamic  ” 
rather  than  “  static  ” ;  and  they  aim  at  presenting  the  * 
“philosophy”  of  economic  history.  And,  thus,  their  in¬ 
terest  in  any  one  period  is  not  that  they  may  directly 
compare  it  with  the  present  or  any  other  period,  but  be¬ 
cause  every  period  may  furnish  them  with  points  from 
which  they  may  determine  the  curve  of  economic  evolu¬ 
tion. 

It  has  been  inevitable  that,  with  such  an  ideal  before 
him,  the  leader  of  this  newer  historical  school,  Gustav 
Schm oiler,  should  sometimes  have  spoken  slightingly  of 
the  attempt  to  continue  the  old  work  of  deductive  argu¬ 
mentation  :  it  was  inevitable  that  the  theorists  he  has  in 

*  The  reader  who  is  unacquainted  with  the  really  considerable  work  under¬ 
taken  by  Professor  Knapp  and  his  friends  will  find  some  account  of  it  in  a 
review  by  Mr.  Keasbey  and  another  by  the  present  writer  in  the  Political  Sci¬ 
ence  Quarterly  for  December,  1892. 


10 


mind  should  retort  with  language  of  equal  confidence  in 
the  superior  merits  of  their  own  methods.  It  is  often 
hard  for  a  man  to  recognize  that  he  pursues  a  particu¬ 
lar  line  of  thought  chiefly  because  his  own  mental  gifts  lie 
in  that  direction.  It  is  very  natural  that  he  should  feel 
that  the  task  towards  which  he  is  himself  drawn  is  the 
most  urgent  and  beneficent  of  all  tasks.  But  when  Pro¬ 
fessor  Schmoller,  instead  of  being  submissive  to  the 
lessons  read  to  him,  remarks  that  it  is  useless  to  expect 
progress  from  “the  further  distillation  of  the  already-a- 
hundred-times-dis tilled  abstractions  of  the  old  dogma¬ 
tism,”  *  and  declares  very  plainly  that  those  who  attempt 
the  process  lack  a  wide  philosophical  training,!  he  uses 
language,  which,  as  Matthew  Arnold  said  on  a  somewhat 
similar  occasion,  has  certainly  44  too  much  vivacity,”  and 
is  sure  to  create  soreness.  And  when  Professor  Menger 
retorts  by  inventing  for  the  labors  of  his  opponent  the 
pleasing  terms  44  miniature-painting,”  J  44  micrography,”  § 
and  44  specialissima  about  some  gilds  or  other,”  ||  he  can 
hardly  be  acquitted  of  a  certain  acerbity. 

It  is  surely  time  to  cry  a  truce  to  controversy.  Let  it 
be  acknowledged  that  for  a  long  time  to  come  there  are 
likely  to  be  many  honest  and  hard-working  and  intelligent 
men  who  will  be  interested  in  economic  theory :  let  it  be 
acknowledged,  likewise,  that  there  are  likely  to  be  a  num¬ 
ber, —  small,  indeed,  in  America  and  England,  but  still 
noticeable, —  who  also  are  honest  and  hard-working  and 
not  altogether  unintelligent,  who  will  be  interested  in  eco¬ 
nomic  history.  Let  us  try  for  the  next  twenty  years  to 
leave  one  another  severely  alone,  and  see  what  will  come 
of  it.  If  we  have  time,  let  us  read  one  another’s  books. 
Perhaps  we  shall  be  converted :  perhaps  we  shall  only  get 
a  suggestion  here  and  there ;  but,  if  we  cannot  agree,  let 

*  Zur  Litteraturgeschichte  der  Staats-  und  Sozialwissenschaften ,  p.  279. 

t  Ibid.,  p.  293.  $  Die  Irrthumer  des  Historismus ,  pp.  26,  37. 

§  Ibid.,  pp.  27,  37.  ||  Ibid.,  p.  40. 


11 


ns  be  silent.  We  shall,  at  any  rate,  gain  some  little  ad¬ 
ditional  time  for  our  own  inquiries ;  and  meanwhile  the 
general  progress  of  human  thought  may  quietly  bring  a 
solution.  And  yet  I  would  hardly  be  supposed  to  imply 
that  the  controversy  of  the  last  few  years  has  been  a 
waste  of  words.  A  good  deal  of  fighting  was  necessary 
before  the  right  of  the  historical  economist  to  a  fair  field 
was  recognized  in  England  and  America.  I  should  not 
be  surprised  to  hear  that  in  Germany  some  few  years  ago 
there  was  the  opposite  evil, —  a  too  complete  exclusion 
of  economic  theorists  from  places  of  academic  influence. 
But  now  that  an  armistice  can  be  signed  on  honorable 
terms,  it  were  well  to  do  so.  Harvard  must  receive  the 
credit  of  having  been  the  first  among  universities  to  real¬ 
ize  the  altered  situation.  It  has  been  the  first  to  see  the 
wisdom  of  having  both  attitudes  —  the  theoretical  and  the 
historical  —  represented  in  a  great  institution  of  learning. 
Its  action  is  the  more  commendable  because  it  has  been 
determined  upon  at  the  instigation  of  teachers  already  in 
possession  of  the  territory,  whose  own  intellectual  sympa¬ 
thies  are  chiefly  on  the  side  of  theory.  They  have  shown 
a  confidence  in  free  inquiry,  and  an  understanding  of  the 
true  nature  of  a  university,  which  are  still  rare. 

But  such  a  truce  ought  not  certainly  to  prevent  any 
of  us  from  frankly  expressing  his  own  private  opinions 
to  any  student  who  cares  to  ask  for  them.  And  the  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  make  one’s  own  position  plain  upon  assuming 
new  duties  in  a  new  sphere  is  so  rare  that  it  may  fairly 
be  brought  within  the  same  exception.  It  must  be  re¬ 
membered  that  I  shall  be  expressing  only  my  own  individ¬ 
ual  judgment ;  that  I  know  full  well  that  there  are  many 
able  men  who  absolutely  differ  from  me ;  that  it  is  probable 
enough  that,  having  heard  what  I  may  have  to  say,  stu¬ 
dents  will  straightway  go  off  and  work  in  another  direc¬ 
tion  ;  and  that  they  may  be  happy  in  doing  so.  Still,  what 


12 


I  should  say  to  an  able  and  properly  prepared  student  of 
mature  mind  who  came  to  me  for  suggestions  would  be 
somewhat  as  follows  :  — 

“  You  have  already,  I  understand,  given  some  attention 
to  Political  Economy.  You  are  acquainted  with  the  main 
outline  of  the  theory  as  it  is  presented,  for  instance,  by 
John  Stuart  Mill.  You  know  something  of  the  history  of 
Political  Economy  from  Adam  Smith  to  Mill,  and  of  the 
general  character  of  the  development  since  Mill’s  time. 
If,  indeed,  you  have  not  already  got  this  equipment, 
I  would  advise  you  to  get  it;  the  study  will  supply 
you  with  points  of  view  which  you  will  afterwards  find 
convenient,  and  it  will  introduce  you  to  an  interesting 
chapter  of  modern  thought.  Moreover,  as  teaching  is 
now  arranged  in  the  great  universities,  you  will  have 
little  difficulty  in  making  these  preliminary  studies.  Six 
months’  steady  work  will  probably  suffice.  I  can  assume, 
you  tell  me,  that  you  already  have  this  knowledge  ;  you 
are  interested  in  the  economic  life  of  society ;  you  would 
like  to  attempt  a  little  independent  work  of  your  own ; 
and  you  ask  in  what  direction  your  efforts  are  likely  to  be 
most  fruitful.  I  cannot  say  that  the  outlook  in  the  field  of 
theoretic  discussion  looks  very  hopeful.  For  years  there 
has  been  a  keen  controversy  going  on  upon  the  subject  of 
Distribution ;  and  economists,  even  economists  of  the  first 
rank,  seem  as  far  from  agreement  as  ever.  According 
to  President  Walker,  Wages  are  the  Residual  Share  which 
falls  to  the  laborer  out  of  the  joint  produce  of  capitalist, 
employer,  land-owner,  and  laborer,  the  three  other  shares 
being  limited.  For  fifteen  years  he  has  maintained  this 
in  books  of  every  size :  it  has  been  echoed  in  half  the 
colleges  of  America  and  Great  Britain ;  and  yet  I  doubt 
whether  you  could  discover  another  living  economist  of 
importance  who  agrees  with  him.  Or  take  Profits.  You 
will  find  equally  competent  writers  who  explain  Profits  as 
the  Wages  of  management,  as  a  reward  for  Risk,  and  as  a 


13 


species  of  gain  governed  by  laws  similar  to  those  of  Rent. 
I  am  aware  that  several  of  the  younger  American  econo¬ 
mists  are  accepting  wholesale  the  new  Austrian  doctrine 
of  ‘  subjective  value,’  and  think  they  find  in  it  the  key 
to  every  problem.  But  I  notice  that,  in  the  judgment  of 
Dr.  Bonar, —  who  has  himself  done  more  than  any  one 
else  to  introduce  the  Austrian  writers  to  the  attention  of 
English-speaking  students, —  what  they  have  given  us  is 
‘rather  a  definition  of  value  than  an  explanation  of  its 
causes.’  *  Their  principles  have  still  to  be  applied  to 
‘the  problems  of  distribution  as  they  meet  us  in  modern 
countries  ’ ;  f  and  it  is  not  clear  that  in  this  undertaking 
their  American  disciples  are  being  greatly  helped  by  the 
new  phraseology.  Moreover,  one  cannot  but  observe  that 
the  early  difficulty  is  still  constantly  turning  up, —  that 
economists  cannot  understand  one  another.  There  is  a 
page  in  one  of  the  back  numbers  of  our  own  Quarterly 
Journal  which  makes  one  pause.  It  contains  two  brief  let¬ 
ters.  In  one,  distinguished  economist  A  says  of  a  criti¬ 
cism  of  his  views  by  distinguished  economist  B,  ‘  I  abide 
by  my  doctrines  as  expounded  by  myself,  and  I  do  not  ac¬ 
cept  the  paraphrase  of  them  given  by  Mr.  B.’  In  the 
other,  well-known  writer  C  remarks  of  well-known  writer 
D,  ‘I  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  showing  that  Mr.  D, 
despite  his  denial,  did  use  the  term  “profits”  as  I  under¬ 
stood  it.’  J  One  takes  up  by  chance  another  number  of  the 
Quarterly ,  and  one’s  eye  catches  ‘  The  misunderstanding 
that  is  the  basis  of  President  Z’s  chief  criticism  [of  me]  is 
radical  and  unexpected.’  §  I  see  no  reason  to  suppose,” 
I  should  say  to  my  inquiring  friend,  “that  you  are  likely  to 
be  much  more  successful  in  interpreting  statements  of  the¬ 
ory  than  these  able  persons  have  been.  Of  course,  if  you 
have  reason  to  believe  that  you  possess  a  peculiar  aptitude 
for  abstract  reasoning,  and  are  strongly  attracted  towards 

*  Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,  iii.  p.  26.  t  Ibid.,  p.  31. 

|  Ibid.,  p.  109.  §  Ibid.,  vi.  p.  116. 


14 


economic  theory,  you  may  find  a  good  deal  of  pleasure 
in  turning  your  thoughts  in  that  direction.  I  hardly  care 
to  prophesy,  with  any  very  strong  feeling  of  certitude,  that 
you  will  not  arrive  at  valuable  results ;  though  I  scarcely 
think  it  probable.  Farther  than  that  I  am  not  inclined 
to  go.  But,  if  you  have  no  such  strong  bent,  then  I 
would  suggest  that  you  should  consider  the  advisability 
of  trying  your  hand  at  economic  history.  Here  is  an  al¬ 
most  untrodden  field  :  here  is  abundance  of  material;  and, 
even  if  you  do  not  arrive  at  any  very  wide-reaching  con¬ 
clusions,  the  facts  which  you  may  discover  will  themselves 
be  positive  accessions  to  knowledge.  As  Lotze  says,  c  To 
know  facts  is  not  everything,  but  it  is  a  great  deal ;  and  to 
think  lightly  of  them  because  one  yearns  for  something 
further  is  fitting  only  to  those  who  do  not  understand  that 
the  half  is  often  better  than  the  whole.’  ” 

Before  proceeding  now  to  speak  more  at  length  of 
economic  history  itself,  there  are  two  criticisms  which  it 
will  be  well  to  clear  out  of  the  way.  It  is  urged,  in  the 
first  place,  that  “some  familiarity  with  economic  theory 
is  essential  to  the  interpretation  of  industrial  phenomena 
such  as  it  falls  within  the  province  of  the  historian  to 
give.”  *  It  will  be  remembered  that  I  have  advised  the 
imaginary  enthusiast  to  begin  by  gaining  even  a  consid¬ 
erable  familiarity  with  economic  theory.  But  I  must 
confess  that  I  have  done  so  chiefly  from  a  sense  of  justice 
to  the  man  himself  in  the  present  state  of  opinion.  Theor¬ 
etic  political  economy  is  still  so  strong  in  the  support  of 
most  teachers  in  England  and  America  that  it  would  be 
hardly  fair  to  set  a  man  against  the  current, —  especially  if 
his  professional  prospects  as  a  teacher  were  at  all  involved, 
—  unless  he  were  in  a  position  to  judge  for  himself.  But, 
so  far  as  the  actual  utility  of  economic  theory  to  the  his¬ 
torian  is  concerned,  I  cannot  help  feeling  that  much  of 


*  Keynes,  p.  271. 


15 


the  language  used  is  unnecessarily  grandiose,  especially  as 
1  applied  to  those  earlier  periods  which  are  in  most  need  of 
investigation.  Says  the  same  writer,  “  All  that  is  really 
i  given  us  in  each  case  by  direct  evidence  is  a  highly  com¬ 
plex  sequence  of  events,  in  which  the  true  bonds  of 
causal  connection  may  be  disguised  in  a  thousand  different 
ways,  so  that,  far  from  being  patent  to  every  observer, 
they  can  be  detected  only  by  the  trained  student  thor¬ 
oughly  equipped  with  scientific  knowledge.”  But,  when 
this  same  writer  goes  on  to  illustrate  economic  theory 
from  history,  the  sort  of  illustration  he  takes  is  a  state¬ 
ment  that  “  a  dry  summer  ”  in  the  Middle  Ages  “  caused 
much  wear  and  tear  of  implements,  and  consequently  an 
increased  demand  and  a  higher  price,  so  that  the  bailiffs’ 
accounts  frequently  mention  ‘the  dearness  of  iron  on 
account  of  drought.’”  “We  could  not,”  he  says,  “have 
a  better  illustration  of  the  effect  of  demand  on  price.”  * 
Surely,  the  power  of  tracing  so  obvious  a  connection 
between  phenomena  demands  nothing  more  than  plain 
common  sense :  we  might  even  use  the  amusing  phrase 
of  Thorold  Rogers,  and  say  that  “so  much  was  known 
in  the  days  of  the  Egyptian  and  Babylonian  kings.” 
The  author  whom  I  have  quoted  would  seem  to  have 
i  been  unwittingly  taking  for  granted  that  the  historical 
economist  is  anxious  to  discuss  just  such  problems  as 
the  modern  theorist,  only  in  a  different  environment. 
Such  exaggerated  estimates  of  the  value  of  theory  will 
disappear  when  the  character  of  the  work  before  the 
economic  historian  comes  to  be  better  understood.  It 
will  be  seen  to  be  almost  as  great  a  mistake  to  use  such 
language  in  relation  to  the  historian  of  economic  con¬ 
ditions  as  it  would  be  to  use  it  in  relation  to  the  his- 
:  torian  of  constitutional  or  legal  conditions.  It  is  strange 
that  this  is  not  already  apparent.  No  one,  for  instance, 
i  would  deny  the  great  value  for  a  true  understanding  of 


Keynes,  p.  287. 


16 


social  progress  of  two  recent  books  touching  very  dif¬ 
ferent  periods,  Mr.  Seebohm’s  Village  Community  and 
Mr.  Charles  Booth’s  Labor  and  Life  of  the  People .  In 
neither  of  these  books  has  economic  theory  been  of  any 
visible  service. 

Nevertheless,  to  provide  against  the  chance  that  even 
the  simplest  causal  connections  may  be  overlooked,  it  will 
be  a  wise  precaution  to  advise  students  to  begin  by  mak¬ 
ing  themselves  familiar  with  the  rudiments  of  modern 
Political  Economy.  Moreover,  since  modern  Political 
Economy  has  certainly  brought  into  prominence  some  of 
the  leading  characteristics  of  the  agriculture  and  industry 
and  trade  of  to-day,  its  formulae  will  give  the  economic 
historian  convenient  standards  of  comparison,  whereby  he 
may  the  better  perceive  what  are  the  distinctive  features 
of  past  conditions.  But  more  than  this  economic  theory 
will  not,  in  my  opinion,  do  for  any  save  those  states  of 
society  to  which  its  ablest  vindicator,  Bagehot,  expressly 
restricted  its  applicability, —  those  “  states  of  society  in 
which  commerce  has  largely  developed,  and  where  it  has 
taken  the  form  of  development,  or  something  near  the 
form,  which  it  has  taken  in  England  ”  and  America  dur¬ 
ing  the  last  hundred  years.*  And  even  for  this  very 
recent  period  a  good  deal  of  excellent  work,  of  indispen¬ 
sable  work,  is  possible  without  the  use  of  “  the  economic  j 
organon  ” ;  f  as  is  abundantly  shown  by  the  writings  of  i 
Mr.  Charles  Booth  and  what  may  be  called  his  school, — 


*  Economic  Studies ,  p.  6  ;  cf.  pp.  5,  17. 

fThis  is  the  happy  phrase  of  Professor  Marshall,  and  the  text  of  his 
Present  Position  of  Economics  (1885).  With  a  very  great  part  of  Professor 
Marshall’s  argument  the  present  writer  would  entirely  agree ;  though  he 
would  point  out  that  the  “  examination  of  facts  by  reason”  (p  44)  and  the 
use  of  the  “three  familiar  scientific  methods”  (p.  45)  do  not  necessarily 
involve  the  use  of  the  “organon.”  He  would  urge,  also,  that  to  say,  as 
Professor  Marshall  does,  that  “  facts  by  themselves  are  silent”  (p.  41)  is  to 
overshoot  the  mark.  The  lecture,  however,  shows  the  dawn  of  the  sun  of 
conciliation  seven  years  ago  rather  than  the  present  effulgence  of  its  noon¬ 
tide  beams. 


17 


such  investigators  as  Mr.  Schloss,  Mr.  Llewellyn  Smith, 
and  Miss  Collet. 

The  other  stumbling-block  to  be  cleared  out  of  the  way 
is  the  argument  based  on  the  imperfection  of  the  historical 
record.  Mr.  Keynes  has  quoted  from  Richard  Jones  the 
remark  that  “  history  has  suffered  to  drop  from  her  pages, 
perhaps  has  never  recorded,  much  of  the  information 
which  would  now  be  most  precious  to  us  ” ;  *  and,  as 
Jones  is  one  of  the  fathers  of  the  historical  church,  the 
objection  is  a  depressing  one.  But,  on  referring  to  the 
passage  itself,  it  will  be  found  that  Richard  Jones  went 
on  to  put  a  more  cheering  view  of  the  matter  in  language 
which,  though  a  little  rhetorical,  ought  always  to  be 
quoted  after  citing  the  preceding  sentence:  “Yet  this 
defect  does  not  always  exist  when  we  think  it  does.  The 
compiler  and  the  student  are  sometimes  more  to  blame 
than  the  original  historian.  The  labors  of  Niebuhr, 
Savigny,  Heeren,  Miiller,  have  proved  that  there  is  much 
knowledge,  most  important  to  our  subject,  in  historical 
records,  which  has  faded  from  the  minds  of  men,  and 
must  be  laboriously  recovered  from  the  recesses  of  neg¬ 
lected  literature,  like  lost  and  sunken  riches  from  the 
secret  depths  of  the  ocean.  Our  own  scholars  and  anti¬ 
quaries  will  not,  we  may  hope,  be  backward  in  imitating 
them ;  and  the  historical  documents,  both  of  our  own  and 
'  of  foreign  countries,  contain,  we  may  well  believe,  large 
and  unknown  stores  of  economical  instruction, —  many  a 
heap  of  unsunned  treasures  to  reward  their  researches.”  f 

We  are  now  in  a  position  to  look  at  the  nature  of 
economic  history  a  little  more  closely.  Let  us  begin  by 
asking  wherein  it  differs  from  what  has  hitherto  been 
known  as  social  history,  or  what  the  Germans  call  “  the 
history  of  civilization,” —  Culturgeschichte.  Social  history, 
—  so  far,  indeed,  as  it  has  existed  at  all, —  has  appealed 

*  Scope  and  Method ,  p.  308.  t  Literary  Remains ,  p.  570. 


18 


to  a  multiplicity  of  interests.  It  has  appealed,  e.g .,  to  a 
psychological  interest,  curious  to  study  forms  of  thought 
remote  from  our  own ;  it  has  appealed  still  more  to  what 
may  be  called  an  aesthetic  interest,  the  pleasure  we  take 
in  mere  quaintness  or  strangeness,  like  our  satisfaction  at 
seeing  a  mediaeval  market-place  on  the  stage.  But  eco¬ 
nomic  history  is  throughout  dominated  by  one  main  inter¬ 
est, —  the  economic.  It  asks  what  has  been  the  material 
basis  of  social  existence ;  how  have  the  necessities  and 
conveniences  of  human  life  been  produced ;  by  what 
organization  has  labor  been  provided  and  directed;  how 
have  the  commodities  thus  produced  been  distributed; 
what  have  been  the  institutions  resting  on  this  direction 
and  distribution ;  what  changes  have  taken  place  in  the 
methods  of  agriculture,  of  industry,  of  trade;  can  any 
intelligible  development  be  traced ;  and,  if  so,  has  it  been 
from  worse  to  better.  These,  and  many  like  them,  are 
the  questions  which  will  be  asked  by  the  student  of  eco¬ 
nomic  history.  The  marking  out  of  such  a  field  of  study 
is  only  a  fresh  example  of  the  division  of  scientific  labor : 
it  is  the  provisional  isolation,  for  the  better  investigation 
of  them,  of  a  particular  group  of  facts  and  forces.  And 
this  especial  study  of  what  may  at  first  sight  seem  a  sordid 
side  of  human  affairs  is  justified  by  its  importance.  For 
“the  two  things  best  worth  attending  to  in  history,”  as 
Mr.  John  Morley  has  well  remarked,  “  are  the  great  move¬ 
ments  of  the  economic  forces  of  a  society,  on  the  one  hand, 
and,  on  the  other,  the  forms  of  religious  opinion  and 
ecclesiastical  organization.”  *  Much  that  has  been  in¬ 
cluded  in  social  history  the  student  will  now  relegate  to 
the  historian  of  art,  of  literature,  of  technical  processes,  of 
superstition,  and  what  not.  What  remains  he  will  utilize 
for  his  special  purpose,  endeavoring  to  place  in  order  and 
coherence  what  has  hitherto  been  but  a  heap  of  discon¬ 
nected  particulars. 

*  “  On  Popular  Culture,”  in  Miscellanies  (ed.  1886),  iii.  p.  9. 


19 


It  may,  however,  be  observed  in  this  connection  that  the 
economic  historian  will  often  think  it  wise  to  postpone  the 
consideration  of  many  bits  of  information, —  may  even  be 
tempted  to  thrust  them  impatiently  on  one  side, —  which 
are  commonly  supposed  to  be  of  prime  importance  for  his 
purpose.  This  is  particularly  true  of  statistics  as  to  prices 
and  wages  in  the  Middle  Ages.  Partly  because  Thorold 
Rogers  gave  his  whole  attention  to  the  collection  of  this 
sort  of  material,  partly  because  the  economic  theorists  are 
*  preoccupied  by  the  operations  of  the  market,  there  has 
grown  up  an  idea  that  what  the  economic  historian  most 
craves  for  is  to  learn  the  price  of  a  day’s  labor  or  of  a 
day’s  food  in  past  centuries.  Facts  of  this  kind  are  valu¬ 
able,  but  only  when  we  can  place  them  in  their  proper 
setting.  Our  first  requirement  is  to  understand,  far  more  ^ 
precisely  than  we  do  at  present,  what  has  been  the  institu¬ 
tional  framework  of  society  at  the  several  periods,  what 
has  been  the  constitution  of  the  various  social  classes,  and 
their  relation  to  one  another.  This  is  the  explanation 
of  what  must  have  struck  every  one  who  has  given  serious 
attention  to  English  agrarian  history, —  the  infinitely 
greater  importance  of  the  first  one  hundred  pages  of  Mr. 
Seebohm’s  work  than  of  all  Thorold  Rogers’s  voluminous 
collections,  and  that  although  the  former  had  not  in  all 
probability  given  to  the  subject  one-fifth  of  the  time  and 
labor  bestowed  by  the  second.  It  is  because  Mr.  Seebohm 
has  given  us  a  vivid  picture  of  the  daily  life  of  the  agri¬ 
cultural  population,  which  for  the  first  time  has  imparted 
to  Mr.  Rogers’s  facts  a  true  significance. 

“If  ‘economic  history,’  after  all,  is  only  a  branch  of 
history,  why  not  leave  it,”  it  may  be  asked,  “  to  the  his¬ 
torian  pure  and  simple  ?  or,  if  you  are  not  content  to  do 
that,  why  thrust  yourself  into  the  ranks  of  the  econo¬ 
mists?”  Well,  the  time  may  come  when  those  who  are 
interested  in  economic  history  will  have  to  turn  their 


20 


backs  on  the  “  economists,”  and  cry,  Ecce  convertimur  ad 
gentes !  It  may  be  granted  that,  as  things  are  now, 
economic  history  belongs  equally  to  the  departments  of 
history  and  economics.  But  this  same  characteristic  of 
touching  two  fields  which  are  nevertheless  fenced  off 
from  one  another  is  equally  true  of  legal  history  and 
of  ecclesiastical  history.  There  is  no  reason  in  the  nature 
of  things  why  the  “  pure  historian,”  as  he  is  called,  should 
not  investigate  both  the  history  of  religion  and  the  history 
of  law.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  work  of  research  in 
these  two  fields  has  usually  been  carried  on  by  men  who 
began  by  being  theologians  and  lawyers  in  the  narrow 
sense.  So,  similarly,  the  men  who  have  of  late  done  most 
to  advance  the  knowledge  of  economic  history  are  men 
like  Schanz,  Ochenkowski,  Held,  Brentano,  Toynbee, 
Cunningham, —  to  mention  only  those  writers  who  have 
given  special  attention  to  England.  All  these  have  been 
men  who  have  had  an  “  economic  ”  training,  and  have 
been  drawn  to  the  study  of  the  past  by  their  interest 
in  the  problems  of  the  present.  Professor  Menger  has 
indeed  complained,  in  language  which  leaves  nothing  to 
be  desired  in  point  of  vehemence,  that  “the  historical 
school  has  been  from  the  very  first  not  the  result  of  the 
profound  study  of  the  problems  of  our  own  science:  it 
has  not  arisen,  like  historical  jurisprudence,  from  the  sci¬ 
entific  needs  of  economists  dealing  seriously  with  their 
own  questions.”*  “Like  foreign  conquerors  have  the 
historians  entered  upon  the  territory  of  our  science,  to 
force  upon  us  their  speech  and  usages,  their  terminology 
and  methods.”  f  Professor  Menger  may  have  had  in  his 
mind,  while  thus  writing,  circumstances  hidden  from  the 
world ;  but,  certainly,  his  statement  is  very  far  from  being 
precise,  so  far  as  English  work  is  concerned.  No  one 
would,  I  imagine,  deny  the  name  of  economist  to  Richard 
Jones,  to  Cliff e  Leslie,  to  Thorold  Rogers,  to  Arnold 


*  Irrthumer,  Vorwort,  p.  iii. 


t  Ibid.,  p.  yi. 


21 


Toynbee.  The  case  of  Toynbee  is  sufficient  to  illus¬ 
trate  the  motives  that  have  been  at  work.  Toynbee  came 
towards  the  end  of  his  life  to  give  his  attention  more  and 
more  exclusively  to  the  economic  history  of  the  last  two 
centuries,  precisely  because  of  his  inexorable  desire  to 
penetrate  more  deeply  into  “the  problems  of  our  own 
science.” 

But  to  dwell  on  the  somewhat  grudging  attitude  of 
certain  writers  would  be  to  partake  of  their  spirit.  In 
my  lectures  here, —  if  I  may  speak  for  myself, —  I  shall 
assume  such  an  acquaintance  with  the  main  facts  of 
“pure  history  ”  and  also  with  the  main  ideas  of  “pure  eco¬ 
nomics”  as  may  fairly  be  asked  of  educated  men.  My 
hearers  may  be  expected,  I  hope,  to  know  the  centuries 
to  which  belong  the  Norman  Conquest,  the  Fall  of  Con¬ 
stantinople,  the  Discovery  of  America,  the  French  Revol¬ 
ution,  just  as  they  may  be  expected  to  know  the  general 
meaning  of  Division  of  Labor,  and  Supply  and  Demand. 
It  will  be  cause  for  rejoicing  if  the  study  attracts  men 
from  the  historical  side  as  well  as  from  the  economic. 
But  so  long  as  students  present  themselves,  and  men  are 
stimulated  after  a  survey  of  the  field  to  engage  in  new 
investigation,  we  need  not  greatly  care  to  what  group  of 
studies  this  particular  one  is  assigned.  It  is  indeed  one 
of  the  advantages  of  the  elastic  system  of  Harvard  teach¬ 
ing  that  here  such  perplexities  need  hardly  trouble  us. 

And  now  let  us  ask  ourselves,  before  we  leave  the  sub¬ 
ject,  why,  after  all,  we  should  study  economic  history. 
First,  then,  we  study  economic  history  for  a  reason  which 
some  may  think  the  lowest, —  and  others  more  truly  will 
regard  as  of  the  essence  of  a  liberal  education, —  in  order 
to  gratify  a  natural  and  innocent  curiosity.  The  more  we 
discover  that  history,  as  we  have  hitherto  possessed  it,  has 
told  us  little  more  than  the  external  movements  of  the 
surface  waters  of  society,  the  more  we  shall  be  drawn  to 


22 


the  search  for  more  trustworthy  and  penetrating  know¬ 
ledge.  The  mere  desire  to  know  will  be  for  many  the 
only  motive  and  the  sufficient  justification.  A  distin¬ 
guished  man  of  letters  has  indeed  said  that  he  “does  not 
in  the  least  want  to  know  what  happened  in  the  past,  ex¬ 
cept  as  it  enables  him  to  see  his  way  more  clearly  through 
what  is  happening  to-day.”*  Auguste  Comte  carried  the 
principle  further,  and  even  proposed  to  put  the  continued 
pursuit  of  certain  studies  under  the  ban  as  unsocial,  when 
once  they  had  reached  a  point  beyond  which,  in  his  judg¬ 
ment,  they  were  incapable  of  being  of  service  to  mankind. 
It  chanced  that  the  very  study  which  Comte  would  have 
proscribed,  pursued,  as  it  was,  in  spite  of  his  anathema, 
from  the  mere  love  of  truth,  has  since  been  fruitful  in  new 
and  practical  applications.  And  so  it  may  be  with 
economic  history.  Let  us  know  all  we  can  about  it ;  and 
the  application  may  be  trusted  to  take  care  of  itself. 
Even  if  the  subject  had  no  utility  outside  its  interest  for 
the  student  himself,  it  would  widen  his  sympathies,  en¬ 
large  his  conceptions  of  the  possible,  and  save  him  from 
the  Philistinism  of  the  market-place. 

But  with  many  of  us  it  will  properly  be  an  additional 
motive  that  economic  history  is  intimately  bound  up  with 
modern  discussions.  This  is  a  consequence  of  that  pecul¬ 
iarly  English  and  American  trait,  the  love  of  precedent. 
To  what  is  called  the  “  Anglo-Saxon  ”  mind  the  fact  that 
such  and  such  conditions  existed  in  the  past  is  itself  a 
strong  reason  why  they  should  be  made  to  exist  in  the 
present.  It  is  very  noticeable  to  any  one  who  has  come 
into  contact  with  popular  socialistic  or  revolutionary 
movements  that  an  alleged  historical  fact  has  often  more 
hold  upon  men’s  minds  than  any  theoretic  argument. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  belief  in  a  primitive  communism. 
Mr.  Henry  George  tells  his  readers, —  and  he  has  doubtless 
a  certain  apparent  justification  in  the  writings  of  some 


Mr.  John  Morley,  u.  s. 


23 


recent  authorities, —  that  “the  common  right  to  land  has 
everywhere  been  primarily  recognized,  and  private  owner¬ 
ship  has  nowhere  grown  up  save  as  the  result  of  usurpa¬ 
tion  ” ;  and,  again,  that  “  historically,  as  ethically,  private 
property  in  land  is  robbery.”  *  You  have  only  to  attend  a 
single-tax  meeting  to  find  that  this  argument  plays  a  much 
greater  part  in  the  thoughts  of  Mr.  George’s  disciples  than 
it  does  even  with  Mr.  George  himself.  Or,  again,  notice 
how  prominent  in  English  socialist  literature  has  become 
the  picture  of  the  golden  age  of  the  English  laborer  in  the 
fifteenth  century, —  a  theory  which  was  first  borrowed  from 
Thorold  Rogers,  and  is  now  regarded  almost  as  an  ac¬ 
cepted  truth.  We  are  even  beginning  to  be  told  that 
the  eight-hours  movement  is  but  the  restoration  of  the 
laborer’s  long-lost  happiness.  We  shall  not,  I  trust,  turn 
to  history  in  order  to  find  arguments  for  or  against  any 
such  movements ;  but  the  circumstance  that  our  study 
has  this  curious  bearing  on  modern  discussions  may  fairly 
endow  it  with  a  keener  zest. 

And,  finally,  there  may  be  some  who  will  be  drawn  to 
this  field  of  inquiry  by  a  hope  akin  to  that  which  has  been 
so  stimulating  in  the  investigation  of  physical  nature, — 
the  hope  that  they  may  thereby  arrive  at  a  more  satisfying 
and  intelligible  conception  of  the  evolution  of  human  soci¬ 
ety.  Just  as  in  biological  and  physical  science  the  investi¬ 
gator  is  buoyed  up  by  the  conviction  that  every  isolated 
fact,  could  he  but  learn  how,  has  its  own  place  in  a  se¬ 
quence,  its  own  significance  and  appropriateness,  so  in  the 
history  of  man  we  can  never  be  content  until  we  have 
found  it  a  connected  and  consecutive  whole,  or  until  we 
know  of  a  surety  that  it  is  but  a  chaos  of  meaningless 
fragments.  We  cannot  cease  attempting, —  to  use  an  old 
phrase  in  a  more  modern  sense, —  “  to  justify  the  ways  of 
God  to  man.”  How  far  we  still  are  from  any  such  unify¬ 
ing  conception  of  history  I  need  hardly  say,  least  of  all  to 


*  Progress  and  Poverty ,  Book  VII.  chap.  iv. 


24 


those  who  have  tried  in  vain  to  satisfy  their  hunger  with 
the  husks  of  “  Sociology.”  May  it  not  be  that  in  those 
constant  daily  needs  which  men  have  ever  been  compelled 
to  meet  on  penalty  of  starvation,  in  the  never-ceasi: 
labor  to  produce  out  of  the  earth  the  good  things  it  coij£ 
tains,  and  in  the  efforts  after  a  wiser  distribution  of  tl 
product,  we  may  find  the  thread  of  continuity,  the  unifjj 
ing  generalizations,  which  shall  at  last  make  histori 
something  more  than  “  a  shallow  village  tale  ”  ? 


